Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

261 N.C. 735

Roberts v. Akins

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 29, 1964

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1964-04-29

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1987

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Per CURIAM. The only question before Judge Nimocks was whether plaintiffs should be granted temporary injunc-tive relief “for the year 1963.” It was decided in favor of defendants. Hence, defendants were not aggrieved by Judge Nimocks’ order and their purported appeal must be dismissed. [Citations omitted.] With reference to defendants’ exception to the court’s expression of opinion and ruling with reference to defendants’ plea of estoppel, it seems appropriate to say: Judge Nimocks’ decision was not based on this ruling. Moreover, any ruling by Judge Nimocks with reference to defendants’ plea of estoppel would have significance only for the purpose of resolving the question then before him. The judge presiding at the final hearing is not bound by said ruling but will decide de novo all questions with reference to defendants’ said plea. Hence, it does not appear defendants are prejudiced by the portion of Judge Nimocks’ order to which they excepted.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 84 N.C. App. 141 - Lennon v. Wahler

Relies on WALDRON BUICK COMPANY v. General Motors Corp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1964-04-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The only question before Judge Nimocks was whether plaintiffs should be granted temporary injunctive relief “for the year 1963.” It was decided in favor of defendants. Hence, defendants were not aggrieved by Judge Nimock’s order and their purported appeal must be dismissed. G.S. 1-271; Buick Co. v. General Motors Corp., 251 N.C. 201, 205, 110 S.E. 2d 870.

¶2With reference to defendants’ exception to the court’s expression of opinion and ruling with reference to defendants’ plea of estoppel, it *737seems appropriate to say: Judge Nimocks’ decision was not based on this ruling. Moreover, any ruling by Judge Nimocks with reference to defendants’ plea of estoppel would have significance only for the purpose of resolving the question then before him. The judge presiding at the final hearing is not bound by said ruling but will decide de novo all questions with reference to defendants’ said plea. Hence, it does not appear defendants are prejudiced by the portion of Judge Nimocks’ order to which they excepted.

¶3Appeal dismissed.

/261/nc/735 · .json · Public domain